diff options
author | Eric Fiselier <eric@efcs.ca> | 2019-01-16 02:34:36 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Eric Fiselier <eric@efcs.ca> | 2019-01-16 02:34:36 +0000 |
commit | 2e8efbb084ae87c5fb73ec88abdcd99484300c02 (patch) | |
tree | 4acca9040357db8c52b6b3637b2acf81569d7764 | |
parent | c91126ff7f6371ffe6241a3e69a4c0fbd69e4dd2 (diff) |
[SemaCXX] Unconfuse Clang when std::align_val_t is unscoped in C++03linaro-local/ci/tcwg_kernel/llvm-master-arm-next-defconfiglinaro-local/ci/tcwg_kernel/llvm-master-arm-mainline-allyesconfiglinaro-local/ci/tcwg_kernel/llvm-master-aarch64-stable-defconfiglinaro-local/ci/tcwg_kernel/llvm-master-aarch64-lts-allyesconfiglinaro-local/ci/tcwg_kernel/llvm-master-aarch64-lts-allnoconfig
When -faligned-allocation is specified in C++03 libc++ defines
std::align_val_t as an unscoped enumeration type (because Clang didn't
provide scoped enumerations as an extension until 8.0).
Unfortunately Clang confuses the `align_val_t` overloads of delete with
the sized deallocation overloads which aren't enabled. This caused Clang
to call the aligned deallocation function as if it were the sized
deallocation overload.
For example: https://godbolt.org/z/xXJELh
This patch fixes the confusion.
-rw-r--r-- | clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp | 18 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx03-aligned-allocation-unscoped-enum.cpp | 21 |
2 files changed, 34 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp index 22172ba3fb4..8c89a3cee3d 100644 --- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp +++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp @@ -1511,11 +1511,19 @@ namespace { Destroying = true; ++NumBaseParams; } - if (FD->getNumParams() == NumBaseParams + 2) - HasAlignValT = HasSizeT = true; - else if (FD->getNumParams() == NumBaseParams + 1) { - HasSizeT = FD->getParamDecl(NumBaseParams)->getType()->isIntegerType(); - HasAlignValT = !HasSizeT; + + if (NumBaseParams < FD->getNumParams() && + S.Context.hasSameUnqualifiedType( + FD->getParamDecl(NumBaseParams)->getType(), + S.Context.getSizeType())) { + ++NumBaseParams; + HasSizeT = true; + } + + if (NumBaseParams < FD->getNumParams() && + FD->getParamDecl(NumBaseParams)->getType()->isAlignValT()) { + ++NumBaseParams; + HasAlignValT = true; } // In CUDA, determine how much we'd like / dislike to call this. diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx03-aligned-allocation-unscoped-enum.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx03-aligned-allocation-unscoped-enum.cpp new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..7237fbf9db7 --- /dev/null +++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx03-aligned-allocation-unscoped-enum.cpp @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++03 -triple x86_64-pc-linux-gnu %s \ +// RUN: -faligned-allocation -emit-llvm -o - -Wno-c++11-extensions | FileCheck %s + +// Ensure Clang doesn't confuse std::align_val_t with the sized deallocation +// parameter when the enum type is unscoped. Libc++ does this in C++03 in order +// to support aligned allocation in that dialect. + +using size_t = __decltype(sizeof(0)); + +namespace std { +enum align_val_t : size_t {}; +} +_Static_assert(__is_same(__underlying_type(std::align_val_t), size_t), ""); + +// CHECK-LABEL: define void @_Z1fPi( +void f(int *p) { + // CHECK-NOT: call void @_ZdlPvSt11align_val_t( + // CHECK: call void @_ZdlPv( + // CHECK: ret void + delete p; +} |